Talk:Automotive lighting/Archive 1

European rules for SUVs?
Aren't here some rules in Europe that lead to the placement of lights in the rear bumpers of SUV's. This is because rear lights and indicators must be visible when a tailgate is swung open.
 * Believe so, but haven't a reference to add. There have also been some odd laws about how far a "high-level brake light" (in the rear screen) must be from the main brake lights. The saga of the lights on the 1994-97 Land Rover Discovery highlight this well, with at least five different configurations being tried in that short timespan. (Four of them in the 300Tdi-era models!) – Kieran T (talk  17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this has (also) to do with 'angle of view' of the lamps owing photometric design in relation to 4WD's with rear door-mounted spare wheels. The current UNECE regulations on the matter are therefore appropriate in my view. JP, AUS.

Daytime running lights
Are these mandatory in countries like Canada and Sweden?
 * In the Nordic countries it has long (late 1970's and early 80's) been mandatory to keep the lights on (even on a sunny day), as of today separate forward oriented DRL lamps are not allowed on their own, taillights etc. must also be switched on. As far as I know much of Europe is considering to adopt the policy of DRL or headlights always switched on. Scoo 11:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Regulators from countries signatory to ECE R48 (installation of lighting and light-signalling devices) cannot yet agree on a DRL specification as far as photometry, electrical connection and other stipulations. For now, regulation of this function is on a country-by-country basis. Scheinwerfermann 21:14, 16 December 2005 (EST)

Red turn signals outside US
Some countries require US lights to be modified to local standards and in some it seems to be permissible to drive around with red turn signals on US imports.

-> red turn signals lamps are usually allowed when a car is imported as a household good (normally free of charge) when persons are moving to other countries. When buying a car for importation, the color must be modified to amber (yellow). This is usually done by putting an amber bulb where the back-up bulb is, or by drilling a new hole for an additional socket in that lens (rewiring required).

HID lights, other requirements?
It is often claimed that cars using HID lights (xenon gas) also must have headlight washers and an automatic levelling system (for the lights or the rear axle). Are these EU requirements or UN/ECE requirements only? These refer to ECE rules, but no details are given: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/main/1976/en_1976L0761_index.html


 * This is mentioned in the Headlight article. I added a paragraph recently saying "HID headlamps are subject to the extra ECE regulations for any headlamp brighter than 2,000 lumens; a headlamp cleaning system must be fitted, and any beam level adjustment must be automatic rather than manual." This is in paragraph 6.2.9 of UNECE Regulation 48. --KJBracey 17:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm Crying!
This page it is which is doing the crying. It's crying out for illustrations! This writer it is who can't do the illustrations, because it's European stuff. --Sobolewski 18:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

the switch in the US to amber directionals
re: the "voluntary switch" to amber in 1963, it was not so voluntary as some *states* mandated that the front directionals be amber. Some of them even mandated that the *lenses* be amber; brand new cars were failing safety inspections at least in 1964 for having clear lenses with 1034A bulbs. There was a service letter from Studebaker addressing this issue; I think they had to release amber lenses as a service part for use in those states until it was all straightened out.

Not sure if this is really worthy of inclusion in the main article, just an interesting historical footnote. Besides, I can't document this as I only borrowed the service letters to read and did not photocopy a set for myself (they were fragile enough I didn't trust them to an autofeeder)

Nope
The chronology probably doesn't support this recollection. While it's true that lighting regulation was left entirely as a matter for each state prior to 1968, it could not have been the case that "brand new cars were failing safety inspections for having clear lenses with 1034A bulbs", for the 1034A (and other amber bulbs) were first introduced in 1966. I have considerable information regarding the evolution of state lighting regulations, but nothing concerning any state's requirement for amber front directional indicators beginning in 1963. It's certainly possible, but from this end it looks unlikely. Can you tell us a little more about these service letters you read? Who printed them, when, and where did you find them? Scheinwerfermann 10:55, 11 March 2006 (EST)

These were Studebaker service letters that were printed by the factory and distributed to dealers; a friend of mine had acquired a collection of them while buying up old dealer stock in the 70's and 80's when most of the dealers sold out. I know that the amber lenses were introduced pretty much across the board (for Studebaker) for the '63 MY; they switched back to clear for '64 and while I don't feel like arguing about the date of the introduction of the 1034As (because you probably know more about it than I do) I can only assume that they were using some sort of amber bulb. Supposedly someone in the Studebaker club is working on scanning the service letters and burning them to CD and I have already requested a copy; if/when I get it (the service bulletins literally took years to get together, and this is a project of similar magnitude) I will certainly try to find the one I'm thinking of so I can verify this. ISTR it even named specific states where they were having issues. StudeCommander 03:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do post here if you get your hands back on those bulletins! Scheinwerfermann 10:55, 11 March 2006 (EST)


 * They still have not been released on CD yet and I don't have easy access to the hard copies. Best I can offer is info. from my 1964 Stude chassis parts book; it's a reprint, but a decent one.  The page in question was last revised 3-64.  It lists two different bulbs for the front lights for all 59-64 Studebakers, P/N G454645 "BULB, parking and signal lamp - clear" and 1358200 "BULB, parking and signal lamp - amber" (listed for 1964 models only)  I know that G454645 is a 1034; I don't know what 1358200 is, but it clearly replaced a 1034 yet was amber...  I don't have a 1964 owner's manual to check the bulb chart, sadly, but either I'm really smoking the crack on this one or amber bulbs of some type were in use as early as 1964.


 * Oh, and sorry about the long delay in replying... I don't really contribute to Wikipedia that much. StudeCommander 00:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem on the delay, thanks for getting back to me at all. You've raised an interesting mystery. I've got an 80something-year-old friend who was the chief engineer for one of the two major US automotive bulb makers in the timeframe we're discussing, and he's usually good for answering puzzlers like this. I'll ask him. 1034A doesn't appear in any of the makers' product lists til '66, which was the first model year when a bunch of the big four's products came with clear front turn lenses w/amber bulbs, but if 1034As (or 1034As that weren't yet known as 1034A) were being supplied to Studebaker before 1966, it certainly would not be the first time that a new bulb type was OEM-only for quite awhile before reaching the general parts market. Offhand I can think of perhaps a dozen such bulbs, probably 6 more if I work at it, so perhaps that's what happened. --Scheinwerfermann 02:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I've wandered back to this page and found the issue still somewhat unresolved, I've done a little more research - a friend with a more extensive library than I says that he has a dated 1963 Motor's Handbook specifying a 1034A for a *1963* Buick Riviera. I'm attempting to get a photocopy to scan for you. StudeCommander 02:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Need Different Beam Pictures
The photos added by Scoo are a good start, but there are fairly significant problems with them:


 * The ECE Dipped / Low beam picture shows low beams that are misaimed (too low). They may well be within a particular country's allowable range of aim for vehicles in service, but this photo is not representative of intended illumination characteristics of correctly-aimed ECE low beams.


 * The more-or-less driver's-eye views, without greyscale targets placed along the road edges at regular intervals, are not very illustrative of either beam reach characteristics or comparative traits of different beams.

It is very difficult to show anything useful with photographs of beam patterns, due to the extremely large difference in dynamic range between the human visual system (much larger dynamic range) and any kind of photographic system (much smaller dynamic range). The best that can be achieved with photographs is a gross, rough comparison of the formation of different beam patterns. This is best achieved with photos of the beam pattern projected onto a vertical wall. Calibrations added either to the wall or to the photo, indicating the horizontal and vertical axes of the lamp, add greatly to the information conveyed by the photo. Another useful type of beam pattern photo is the bird's-eye view, taken from a vantage point well above and parallel to the road surface along which the beam is projected.

Much more informative than photos of beam patterns are isolux or isocandela diagrams. These, however, may be difficult for the layman to understand. Scheinwerfermann 21:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I second this request. It'd be nice to illustrate the differenes in the ECE vs US standard beam cut-off. Living in Europe now from living previously in the US for most of my life, I no longer have issues with glaring. When I drive I still can see quite well too. The biggest relief in my opinion is the cut-off applied to HID's and to SUV's in the UK, so that they too do not glare. I'm sure a picture would illustrate this better so long as it's taken on a dark road. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Signal lamp info updates
I've revised the organisation of some of the subsections on signalling lamps. Emergency-braking display systems (flashing brake lamps) aren't limited to vehicles equipped with LED brake lamps, so the info on flashing brake lamps belonged as a subsection of stop lamps, not of LEDs. The two automakers who are pushing these systems are each eager to have their own system adopted as the one and only legal implementation, so they have been releasing lots of propaganda on system effectiveness. Numerous independent, scientifically-rigourous, peer-reviewed and published tests and studies of vehicles so equipped, operating on real roads, has so far shown no safety benefit to such systems.

I've also moved the variable-intensity information so that it's a subsection of "light sources and technology", which now also contains bulb and LED information. Brake lamps are not the only signalling devices covered by regulations permitting variable intensity. Scheinwerfermann 01:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

'Twin stage' brake lights
There are some cars (the BMW 5-series (E60) is actually the only car I know of that has this) with break lights that have two areas of illumination, the first lights up under normal breaking, the second lights up along with the first under hard and sharp braking, the effect is that there is an enlarged brake light area when the driver brakes sharply. Scheinwerfermann you may know more about this than me, so make edit if you do. thanks (PS nice job with above edits). --JCW 14:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Good catch
Last night when I was editing the brake lamp info, I couldn't bring to mind what the operational differences were between the Mercedes and BMW systems—and all my info was at the office, while I was posting from home. You've reminded me, and I've confirmed it, so I'll rework the section to make the difference more clear. Thanks. Scheinwerfermann 17:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Side repeater lights
I'm not sure on their name in other countries (or other parts of the UK) but anyway having read the article i cannot see any section about side repeater lights, they are normally placed just in front of the doors of a car and before the wheel arch but are now sometimes part of the side mirror assembly like in the new VW Golf. I'm not totally sure where they are required and where not (thats why i came to look at this article) but from my trips to the US they don't appear to be required there but also don't appear to be banned as some cars have them but as far as i can tell they are required in the UK and Europe. Here's a picture of one so that you can understand what i' talking about. TheEnlightened 18:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * They are discussed in the third paragraph of the Turn Signals section. Scheinwerfermann 19:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah i appeared to have missed that, sorry but that thanks for showing me. TheEnlightened 21:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Parking lamps & StVZO
It is correct to say that StVZO calls for single-side parking lamps. All countries that have acceded to ECE R48 are required to accept vehicles that carry all lighting and signalling equipment required by R48. There are many instances in which specific such nations have lighting and signalling requirements not contained in R48: German parking lamps, French selective-yellow headlamps, UK dim-dip lights, Swedish headlamp wipers and perception lamps, etc. In such cases, the requirement is preëmpted by R48's provisions, but automakers may choose to incorporate such devices on their cars in countries whose regulations require or permit them. It may seem a fine distinction, but Germany's accedence to R48 did not change StVZO's requirement for single-side parking lamps. Therefore, it is not correct to say that StVZO "allows" this system, but rather that it is called for. Scheinwerfermann 13:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Especial control" (high beams)
A couple of users have edited this section, changing "...no especial control of light" to "...no special control of light...". The two words (special and especial) come from the same root, and have a fair amount of denotative overlap, but are not fully interchangeable. In this context, "especial" is the better choice. I'd like to avoid a long etymological dissertation, but here's a quickie illustration of the difference, in real-world terms: If someone asked you if you'd like to lend him $150, you might say "not especially", but you wouldn't say "not specially". English boasts a broad and rich vocabulary; it's a shame to refrain from using a perfectly understandable and well-chosen word simply because it's not encountered everyday. Nevertheless, if we must adhere to a lowest-common-denominator doctrine, perhaps we'll have to replace especial with particular. Scheinwerfermann 15:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would disagree. [] indicates that 'especial' indicates exceptional value, which I don't see warranted here. I would think 'particular' a good compromise.

Sejtam 06:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On second thought I don't even like 'particular'. Why not just '...no controls to adjust...[at all]'? Sejtam 07:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I fear the dictionaries do not agree with what you found at the BBC's "how to learn English" tutorial. Mirriam-Webster, for example, defines "especial" this way:

being distinctive: as a : directed toward a particular individual, group, or    end   b : of special note or importance : unusually great or significant  c : highly distinctive or personal : PECULIAR  d : CLOSE, INTIMATE  e : SPECIFIC, PARTICULAR 


 * Nevertheless, since this word seems to be sticking in assorted craws (evidently, we have no trouble with the difference between "especially" and "specially", but remove the -ly and our brains seize up), a shift to the synonymous "particular" would seem to solve the problem without spoiling the meaning. Your second suggestion doesn't parse; the phenomenon in question is nothing to do with adjustments. --Scheinwerfermann 14:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Daytime Running Lamps & light color
Please see "Parking lamps and StVZO" above; a similar regulatory interaction is at work here between ECE Regulations and various national regulations. Yes, some countries' national regulations still permit yellow headlamps. In those countries that permit yellow headlamps and permit the daytime use of low-beam headlamps, then effectively a yellow DRL function is allowed. However, this does not mean ECE regulations permit yellow DRLs; they do not. This already-lengthy article would grow intractibly large if we were to discuss each and every national/international and state/Federal regulatory interaction, because there are so many such interactions. The reason why it's critical to convey that ECE doesn't allow a yellow DRL is because the US regulations do allow a "yellow" DRL function not permitted by ECE ("Yellow" is the name applied to what ECE calls "Amber", i.e., turn signal color). This is the subject of some contention in the international regulatory community; OICA is pushing for ECE to permit US-style amber DRLs, which is not likely to happen (Germany's position, for example: "We've spent years pressuring the French to get yellow off the front of cars, and we're not about to sign on for amber DRL!"). In the US, every state has its own vehicle equipment installation and usage regulations, but an article like this isn't the place for them; rather, this is where to discuss the large-scale regulations that apply throughout the whole jurisdiction. The same applies to ECE vs. individual-country regulations.

Also, there is no such a thing as "gold" or "super gold" light. Those are marketing terms applied to certain kinds of automotive bulbs. The terms carry no scientific or regulatory weight and so do not belong in an encyclopædic article.

I agree with you it's a shame that selective-yellow light has been effectively deleted from international regulations and is no longer in use. But, my vote on the matter carried as much weight as yours, and we need to not allow our wishful thinking to creep into Wiki articles. ECE regulations do not allow yellow headlamps or DRLs. Scheinwerfermann 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

UK sidelights
Does anyone know when (and if) the UK law was repealed which said one should always illuminate sidelights (a.k.a. parking lights etc.) when parked after dusk on the "wrong" side of the road, facing against traffic? I think it'd be an interesting point to add in to the article – although my note that it was ever the case has just been rapidly reverted out of the article. Perhaps fair enough since I used mildly ambiguous wording since I can't say if it's still true; but then again an interesting historical note to add to the reasons why the lights existed and weren't phased out. (Along with the theory/reason about the width of the car remaining visible in the event of a main light failure.) – Kieran T (talk  17:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is more a question of local lighting usage laws, which—due to the proliferation of such laws in various jurisdictions—are tricky to incorporate into an article such as this without making the article overly long. I have thought for quite some time that there might be call for an article dealing specifically with lighting usage laws that are in one or another way peculiar to specific jurisdictions, but as yet there is no such article. --Scheinwerfermann 19:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A fair point. I'd felt this to be a worthwhile note because firstly there are a few nation-specific notes (especially for the UK and Germany) and secondly this one had the particular value of hinting at one reason why these lights still exist in some modern cars. The justification of position marking in the event of main light failure seems weak given modern road speeds. – Kieran T (talk  19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * According to regulations worldwide, the lamps in question have two functions: To visually mark the vehicle when it is near traffic and not parked up, but also not in motion (i.e., standing), and to maintain the vehicle's visual signature as a double-track vehicle (rather than e.g. a motorcycle) in the event of a headlamp bulb failure. I'm not following your logic regarding road speeds; the latter function is important whether the vehicle is travelling at low or high speeds. I am sure your note regarding vehicles parked against traffic is correct, but I don't see how it is special relative to the first function described above. Scheinwerfermann 19:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What I mean is, at modern relatively high speeds, by the time one has seen a very dim light, one will be so close that it's too late to do very much about it. I'm presuming that back when the UK legislation was made which rendered sidelights compulsory, the average vehicle speed was rather less, partly due to road surfaces and partly due to car technology.
 * Out of curiosity (and honestly not meaning to be argumentative ;) what evidence is there of the "regulations worldwide" showing the reason why sidelights evolved? – Kieran T (talk  23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In the UK a car can be parked at night on a 30mph road without lights as long as it is facing the same way as traffic. If the speed limit is 40mph or it faces oncoming traffic the sidelights (position lamps) must be left on. This is from the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989.

Parking Lamp nomenclature
Kierant, can you please document your assertion that "parking lamps" is a term officially used to refer to front position lamps in the EU? ECE and EU regulations reserve that term for the single-side-of-vehicle function discussed in the position lamp section of the article. I have reverted, because if we stray from official terminology, we cannot possibly hope to provide a comphrehensive, suitably concise and accurate list of all the colloquial terms by which each function is called. --Scheinwerfermann 19:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's in 1980s-era Volkswagen owner's manuals (in English for various markets); I can try getting the publication number and dates and stuff if you like, I just hadn't considered it worthy of a reference, especially given that it's not available online. – Kieran T (talk  19:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No need...VW has always used mildly amusing English in their owner's manuals, reminiscent of the old Schprockets sketch from Saturday Night Live. Scheinwerfermann 22:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * True – and for comedy, you should see the stick figures in the diagrams! Nevertheless, do you see why I wanted to avoid the current implication that the term is only used in North America? I'm not fixated on any particular wording, but I'd prefer to see the article not make specific claims if they can't be shown to be really so specific. – <font color="#006600">Kieran T (<font color="#006600">talk  23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I still do not agree with you, no. The terminology as enumerated in the article is in line with the official regulatory terminology, jurisdiction by jurisdiction. Vehicle owner's manuals, especially those produced by automakers headquartered where English is not the native language, cannot legitimately be said to supersede official terminology. Consider: Many automakers sell cars with fog lamps in North America. These lamps are described in owner's manuals variously as "fog lamps", "fog lights", "driving lights", "driving lamps", and "fog/driving lights". The only truly correct term for the device is "fog lamp". "Fog light" is acceptable even though technically not correct. None of the others is even slightly applicable to the devices in question. Functionally and per regulations, a fog lamp is not at all the same as a driving lamp. Just as we wouldn't include "driving lamp" as an alternate name for "fog lamp" in this article (because that's not the case, even though some automakers print it in their owner guides), we shouldn't add to the already confusing application of a common term ("parking lamp") to two different functions. --Scheinwerfermann 00:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't see any evidence that the "official" regulations (and definitions) which you allude to apply outside certain markets, and therefore, it's not possible to claim that the term ("parking lamps") can't apply in yet further markets; this is basic logic: you can't prove a negative. But that said, I appreciate that you've clearly put a lot of work and thought into this article, and I have no intention of reasserting the claim; if anybody else happens to understand my point, perhaps they'll express it differently. On the specific of "driving lamp" versus "fog lamp", I actually disagree! Wikipedia doesn't define reality, it reflects it. And if some manufacturers have an untidy way of describing things, that's still what an encyclopædia should report. But it's hardly something to lose sleep over. Meanwhile, here's to working together to find other ways to improve WP! Cheers :) – <font color="#006600">Kieran T (<font color="#006600">talk  00:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There are links to the official regulations worldwide within this and related articles, and soon there will be many more. Your disagreement on the fog/driving lamp nomenclature is noted, but you are quite incorrect: It is absolutely not the goal of Wikipedia to parrot inaccuracies, no matter how popular those inaccuracies may be. People go to an encyclopædia for facts, not for factoids. In any event, I do agree with you on your last point (onward and upward). --Scheinwerfermann 01:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll reinforce Scheinwerfermann on this fully: "It is absolutely not the goal of Wikipedia to parrot inaccuracies, no matter how popular those inaccuracies may be. People go to an encyclopædia for facts, not for factoids". UNECE regulations highlight all performance characteristics of specified lamps, and installation thereof. JP Mot Adv-NSW

This is basically one great article...
...congratulations guys, and first and foremost our Wikipedia automotive lighting specialist :D What it needs is proper references and a history section and we've got an FA here! Excuse me for not helping with that, my knowledge on the subject ends in the moment when it comes to distinguishing left from right turn signals, but I hope you will not let such a great article be deservedly FA'd! Regards, Bravada, talk - 22:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * References: You betchya. Got an enormous stack of them backed up for inclusion, and I agree the next step is to incorporate those references into the article. The logistics of doing so may be a little tricky, though, and here's why: Every subsection will at least contain an inline reference to at least one ECE regulation. All of those regulations are readily available to the world free of charge, as PDFs. It worries me that we'd have an article full of PDF links such that the unwary could wind up with a desktop full of PDF-frass. Maybe I am being overly paranoid, in which case it's simply a matter of taking the time to link to each individual ECE regulation. If my worry is founded, then an alternate strategy might be to link to the ECE regulation homepage. This would be a two-step, indirect link, so I'm not sure this solution is particularly desirable. What're your thoughts? Just for test purposes, an inline link directly to the ECE PDF would look like this: ECE Regulation 1


 * Or, perhaps, like this:


 * So, I will be keen to read your thoughts on how best to incorporate the references. A history section is also a natural, and again a "How to?" question comes up: Do we want to give a concise history of each individual lighting device or function in that device/function's subsection? Or do we want a separate, parsimonious history section dealing with the whole topic? Maybe a little of both? This article is quite long, and lengthy but concise papers have been written on the subject of automotive lighting history alone. I worry the article might become overly long if we're not careful. So, again, interested in your perspective (and that of others—join in, folks!) on the matter. --Scheinwerfermann 22:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm, do you REALLY need to link to those fabulous ECE's directly? Perhaps there is a source that discusses them all, or at least most of them, in one place, in the aspects you mention? I am asking because unfortunately I have been told by a citation/reference specialist while working on a recent FAC that any link should point directly to the page where the information cited is to be found (be it a webpage or book). Or perhaps I was not that unfortunate that I was told that, it is unfortunate that you have to do that in this case, I think you get my drift...


 * Also, please use Template:cite web and related (see them all @ Citation templates), I also think it would be polite to use the Template:PDFlink - this is quite personal, my system reacts quite allergically to pdflinks at the moment.


 * As concerns history, well, I was actually thinking of a "separate, parsimonious history section dealing with the whole topic", where topics such as switching from carbide lamps to electric lighting, inclusion of light turn signals and in general the changes in the usage of lighting in an automobile would be discussed. On the other hand, given the structuring of the article, each section could have a historic perspective added, but I guess out of this two, this would be more cumbersome, and such sections would belong more in specific articles.


 * Anyway you will see it fit, do NOT worry about size concerns. A topic that important and broad does require a rather extensive article, and with good structuring like you have here it is quite user-friendly in spite of the size. At the moment, the article is "only" 31k, most FAs like that are between that and in excess of 50k, so there is still quite a lot of room in reserve. Moreover, I always try to promote the thinking that it's better to create a comprehensive and exhaustive article which is too big and then trim it down by "subarticling" and in other possible ways, then to leave out content just because of size concerns.
 * Regards, Bravada, talk - 23:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there is no suitable secondary source for the contents of ECE regulations; the links will really have to go to the PDFs themselves, unless we do something completely ugly like link to the Google HTML renditions of the PDFs (yuck, please don't make me do this, it won't work.) The PDF link format is probably our best compromise: Go directly to the information, but warn people they're about to download a PDF. This way, if they wish, they can set their browser to view the PDF in the browser itself rather than downloading it.


 * Thank you for the article size information. I'm less concerned now and will work up a history subsection along the lines you describe as well as adding some historical technische leckerbissen to various specific-device subsections! --Scheinwerfermann 23:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sequential turn signals on Mercury Cougars
''Sequential turn signals were factory fitted to Ford Thunderbirds built between 1965 and 1971, inclusive, to Mercury Cougars between 1967 and 1973, to Shelby Mustangs between 1968 and 1970, and to 1969 Imperials (built by Chrysler). No other production cars were so equipped, initially due to the cost and complexity of the system. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, which regulates automotive lighting, was amended in 1970 to require that all turn signal lamps operate in synchronized phase, thus prohibiting sequential turn signals.

...

While U.S. Federal and Canadian motor vehicle safety standards prohibit sequential turn signals on vehicles built after 1 January 1970, Federal standards do not apply to vehicles in use, and so extension of this regulation to vehicles in use is left as a matter of choice for each state or province. ''

According to the above, Cougars were built with sequential turn signals between 1970 and 1973 inclusive, yet such signals were illegal on cars built beginning in 1970. Were Cougars built for three years with illegal turn signals?


 * That is an excellent question. I am fairly sure the Cougars stopped having sequential signals after the 1969 model year, but will dig and see. Thanks for the heads-up. --Scheinwerfermann 21:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Cougars did indeed have sequential turn signals through the end of the 1973 model year production, and Thunderbirds had them through the end of 1971 model year production, which according to the information provided would have made a lot of cars illegal from day one. Ford had to add relays to Thunderbirds during production on December 29, 1969 to increase the brightness of the brake and sequential lights. There is a TSB documenting this, and it states the change was made to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Perhaps this is creating the confusion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.177.73.104 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 2006 September 20 (UTC)


 * Don't think so, intensity is a separate issue from hookup. Still, if you have that TSB, I surely would like to see it—can you scan and post it somewhere? I've removed the date of sequential turn signal illegality from the article pending an answer from DOT on the matter, which I should have in hand by tomorrow. --Scheinwerfermann 18:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, is this law still in effect? Someone I know owns a Mustang that has sequential turn signals, and I can gurantee you that car is no older than a '98. Ahanix1989 04:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this law is still in effect. The sequential signals your friend has are an aftermarket add-on, not factory equipment. Remember, only vehicle manufacturers and importers and their agents and professional technicians are regulated parties under the Federal/Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Vehicles in use and their owners are regulated by the registrar authority (i.e., the state or province in which the vehicle is registered. Some states and provinces have regulations incorporating the Federal/Canada standards either directly or by reference, and in those states sequential turn signals are not legal because they are in violation of FMVSS 108 / CMVSS 108. Other states and provinces do not incorporate FMVSS/CMVSS 108 in their vehicle equipment codes, and in those jurisdictions, barring any other regulation banning sequential signals, they are not illegal. --Scheinwerfermann 14:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Laws on Indicator Repeaters
I think the section on indicator repeaters can do with some expansion, and I'd like to help though wouldn't really know where to look for laws/legislation/whatever. Mainly I'd like to find out two things:


 * What laws there are in Japan regarding these. In Ireland, we get a lot of used Japanese imports, but I've only recently noticed that a lot of Japanese-spec cars don't have them, although many do. Cars I've seen that don't have them include both worldwide cars (Corollas and Pulsars and whatnot) and cars indigenous to Japan, so I don't see any correlation there. The newest car I saw today without repeaters was a '97 (Pulsar sedan), and I only noticed two imports newer than that so can't really say if they've become standardised since then. And also, if they're supposed to be mandatory here, should repeaters not be fitted when the cars are imported here? AFAIK Japanese cars are usually imported here with no modifications at all - whether that's legal is another story.
 * What exact European laws there are about them. After thinking about them, I knew they'd been around for a good while - I know Morris Minors had mechanical repeaters, for example - so kinda assumed they had been mandatory since, say the mid '70s or so. But again upon inspection today I noticed a 1991 Mk. II VW Golf without indicator repeaters, much to my dismay. This was further confirmed by 2 other Mk. II Golfs - they seem to have a small rectangular black plastic spec badge on the wings which would be a perfectly plausible place to put a repeater, but there's not one there! Looking at the pictures on VW Polo also show the Mk. II absent of repeaters up until the facelift in 1990.

Further searching of other European car images here has generally shown varying introduction of repeaters in the '80s and early '90s. I have also noticed Japanese cars (Jpn/Euro/Aus spec) from the '70s and early '80s generally have kinda large indicators at the front of the wings (e.g. Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic) - I don't know if these count as they're very close to the front of the car, though.

Any ideas? --Zilog Jones 19:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Japan has required repeaters for many years. The reason why you're not seeing them is that they have traditionally been integrated into the front corner lamps as you noticed, or separate but located close to the front of each side of the car, rather than being behind each front wheel as has been more common in the European industry. The forward location is legal under ECE and EU regulations. ECE Regulation 48 requires repeaters, so cars with repeaters are common in all signatory countries and many countries that are not signatory. However, each country still has its own national legislation, which may or may not require repeaters. Italy was a very early adopter of the requirement for repeaters ('60s if not earlier), while Germany was very late ('90s), for example. It would be an EXTREMELY labour-intensive task to do the research necessary to provide an accurate country-by-country list of whether and when repeaters were first required! --Scheinwerfermann 19:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I understand having a list of every country would be unnecessary. I was not aware that an ECE regulation covered repeaters - do you know when it was introduced to the regulation? (I found the UNECE website quite confusing and could only find PDFs of amendments and proposals, not the actual Regulation 48). I was also wondering if there were possibly some general EU laws on car lighting, or do they generally just recommend ECE reg's?
 * I see what you mean about Japanese cars having integrated repeaters - I assumed they weren't really counted as repeaters, but come to think of it an awful lot of Japanese cars do have small indicators in the side lights. Are you saying that these aren't ECE compliant, but separate repeaters in front of the front wheels are? That would make sense as to why they change the lights for European versions of the cars. And when exactly did Japan join the UNECE? Upon looking at some Japanese manufacturer websites, it appears that most models now have proper repeaters - I only noticed one Toyota people-carrier/minivan that didn't (forget the model - something not sold here), though it was probably big enough to be a Hiace derivative so may be exempt or something (I've noticed most vans don't have repeaters), or I may have not noticed them.
 * And even Daihatsu seem to be jumping the repeaters-on-mirrors bandwagon now! Actually, does anyone know what was the first car to have these? My guess would be, as per usual for such innovations, the Merc S-Class (W220 in 1998). --Zilog Jones 20:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ECE R48 has always included repeaters, since its inception. The UNECE website can be confusing, but the page you need is here. This page gives you direct access to every ECE Regulation, in English or French, as PDFs. R48 covers the installation and electrical connection of lighting and signalling devices. The technical specifications for the performance and construction of the repeaters themselves is in R6, "Direction Indicators". EU member countries are required to permit the sale and circulation of vehicles and whole vehicles type approved to ECE Regulations, and many non-EU countries adopt most or all ECE regulations intact. Japan began the process of acceding to ECE Regulations in 1998, and has been proceeding slowly but steadily. There is no preference in ECE R6 or R48 for separate repeaters or repeaters integrated with front corner turn signals; either design is permitted as long as all technical standards are met. Many of the Japanese front-corner repeaters are compliant (or nearly so) with ECE R6 and R48 requirements. Remember that used-vehicle importation is regulated at the national level, and equipment standards are usually quite a bit more flexible than they are for new vehicles. Go look at reference #23 in Automotive lighting. --Scheinwerfermann 22:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So if integrated repeaters are compliant with the ECE regulations, I wonder why Japanese cars which featured these got separate repeaters on the European-spec models? For example, the E100 Corolla: Here is a Japanese example, and here is the European model, where the repeaters have been removed from the lights on the corners (they are just side lights now) and ones have been added behind the wheel arches. The picture there is a Dutch-registered car, but lighting generally seems to be the same on Japanese cars sold throughout Europe (probably Africa, Oceania and some Asian markets too, and of course LHD and RHD headlamps will differ) from what I've seen, and in the above case the cars were still produced in Japan. --Zilog Jones 08:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As a design concept, integrated repeaters are allowed under ECE R6 and R48. But that does not mean that any given integrated repeater necessarily complies with the regulations. The interaction of position, integration and performance requirements for front turn indicators, side turn indicators, front position (parking) lamps, headlamps, and sidemarker lamps (in markets that require them) often exert more influence than might be immediately apparent over the design of each of these devices. And, regulatory requirements aren't the only influencing factor on the lighting configuration of a vehicle. Market preferences (or what the automakers perceive as market preferences) and market protectionism also play into it. --Scheinwerfermann 14:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

These questions have intrigued me for some time. A lot of Japanese cars sold in Europe in the 80's had front corner indicator lights which bulged out slightly, ensuring that the lamp fulfilled the function of side repeater indicator too. Since then they seem to have decided this was unsightly and adopted the European practice of a separate side repeater behind the front wheel. For a time the preference was for a front indicator placed under the bumper and the front corner lamp was (converted to?) a sidelight (position lamp). I initially assumed that Japanese market vehicles had to have side marker lamps and the interaction with these was the cause of the differences but I don't believe this is true. It may interest you to know that in 1986 side repeaters were required on new UK market cars. In UK the side repeaters are checked at annual inspection ('MOT') so are normally added to Japanese grey imports by the importer.213.86.133.219 13:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In Sweden, repeater side indicators have been mandatory since model year 1986. CalleC (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Where the **** are the Hazard lights?
Howcome there isn't a section detailing the hazard lights of a car? Every vehicle has them? You know...the button you press where all four front and back brake lights and turn signal lights flash?? You know....you use this when you're going slow or are on the side of the road??? There isn't even an article for them either?142.176.58.228 07:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good catch. I'm headed off to an automotive lighting congress tonight, but when I return I'll put it together and add it, or augment whatever someone else has added. Scheinwerfermann 14:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Inventor of the Turn Signal
Perhaps something could be added to the article about who invented the turn signal. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.48.207 (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing on dashes
It'd be nice to see some incorporation regarding dash lighting and its lighting sources which can range from Electroluminescent to LED's. The former article talks of its use in early Chrysler models and recently finding use in 'new' Fords. I think this section would be a nice addition. I personally do not have much time to devote, nor any praxtical experience aside from what i've read on here stemming from my general interest in the subject. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Green Taillights
In 1972 I attended Transpo 72. VW exhibited an International Experimental Safety Vehicle with green taillights and amber turn signals, reserving red solely for brake lighting. I don't think this is necessarily worthy of inclusion in the article, but I'm curious about whether any similar proposal has ever been made.  Acroterion  (talk)  15:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, such a proposal was made in the 1960s, and was based on valid and sound reasoning regarding human visual physiology (perception of green lights vs. red lights relative to actual vehicle position at night) as well as the more obvious desire to reserve red for a message of high urgency ("Stopping!"). Unfortunately, the proposal went nowhere; by the time it was made, the use of red taillamps was already well entrenched. It would have been potentially problematic to have a mix of red and green taillamps on the roads, and it would have been costly and difficult to retrofit the existing on-road fleet, so we were (and are) stuck with red for the taillamp function. As for amber turn signals, that particular issue is already covered in this article. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It makes sense, but the mental picture of green lights ahead is strange. Red would surely stand out, though (as brake lights in the green).   Acroterion  (talk)  17:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I submit that it only seems "strange" because it differs from what you're accustomed to seeing every day. The notion of flashing the left or right brake lamp as a rear turn indicator seems equally strange to those who see only amber turn signals because they live outside North America. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Dole lights"
I have once again removed the dubious, unsourced assertion that CHMSLs are known as "Dole lights". Until someone can provide a reliable source for this claim, it's subject to the "cite it or drop it" principle. A Google search on the term suggests people have seen the term in various iterations of the article here on Wikipedia (and includes several such iterations on various Wikipedia mirrors), but I didn't spot anything authoritative. Anyone care to provide such a source? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)